Community‐based program promotes interprofessional collaboration among home healthcare professionals: A non‐randomized controlled study

• Published in: Geriatrics & gerontology international Vol. 19; no. 7; pp. 660 - 666
• Main Authors: Noguchi‐Watanabe, Maiko, Maruyama‐Sakurai, Keiko, Yamamoto‐Mitani, Noriko, Matsumoto, Yoshiko, Yoshie, Satoru, Iijima, Katsuya, Yamanaka, Takashi, Akishita, Masahiro
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kyoto, Japan John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 01.07.2019; Blackwell Publishing Ltd
• Subjects: Adult; Collaboration; Community-Based Participatory Research - methods; Education - methods; Female; home care services; Home Care Services - standards; Humans; Interdisciplinary Communication; interprofessional collaboration; Interprofessional Relations; Intersectoral Collaboration; Japan; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Care Team - standards; Program Evaluation; Quality Improvement; Quasi-experimental methods; quasi‐experimental studies; Transitional Care - organization & administration; Workshops; Japan; interprofessional relations; interdisciplinary communication; home care services; quasi-experimental studies; interprofessional collaboration
• ISSN: 1444-1586; 1447-0594
• DOI: 10.1111/ggi.13681

Aim To evaluate the effect of an interprofessional collaboration (IPC) promotion program among community healthcare professionals. Methods A non‐randomized controlled study was carried out. Study participants were home healthcare‐related professionals in a suburban city near Tokyo; program participants were compared with non‐participants. The program consisted of two workshops each 2 h long and 4 months apart. The first workshop focused on developing a community resource map, and discussing community strengths and features. The second focused on examining a case of transitional care from hospital to home. Mail surveys were carried out before the first workshop and 6 months after. The IPC level was examined using an established seven‐domain scale. Analysis of covariance was used to examine the program effect by comparing baseline and 6‐month data in the two groups. Results Altogether, 213 professionals participated (intervention: n = 141 vs control: n = 72); approximately 60% were women, with a mean age of 45.9 ± 10.2 years. There were significant between‐group differences in baseline IPC score, age, type of profession and number of other educational opportunities. After adjusting for these variables, the IPC domains of “familiarity” and “meeting and talking” improved significantly in the intervention group as compared with the control group (P = 0.011 and 0.036, respectively). When the intervention group was split in two (two‐time vs one‐time participants), the improvement at 6 months was not significantly different between two‐ and one‐time participants. Conclusions It is suggested that our program is effective to improve the IPC level; one‐time participation might be enough to have expected improvement. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 660–666.